^{page 546 note 1} p. 148.

^{page 546 note 2} pp. 329 seq., 336.

^{page 546 note 3} p. 417.

^{page 546 note 4} p. 558.

^{page 546 note 5} pp. 221, 222.

^{page 546 note 6} pp. 264, 265.

^{page 546 note 7} p. 110.

^{page 546 note 8} pp. 534 seqq.

^{page 547 note 1} pp. 373, 374.

^{page 547 note 2} pp. 330 seqq.

^{page 548 note 1} Garbe, , in his Indien und das Christentum, pp. 228 seqq.Google Scholar, where a reply should certainly have been made, contents itself with quoting the approval of Sir G. Grierson and Professor Winternitz. But arguments should be answered by arguments, not by authority.

^{page 549 note 1} Indien und das Christentum, p. 227Google Scholar. Professor Garbe (p. 211, n. 1) is wrong in seeing inconsistency in Hopkins, ' Religions of India, pp. 465, 467–8Google Scholar, and that book appeared in 1896, not 1898.

^{page 549 note 2} This is the view of Müller, Max, SBE. i, 52, n. 1Google Scholar, based on the fact that no effort is made in the Brahmanical literature to connect the two Kṛṣṇas.

^{page 549 note 3} Op. cit. p. 249, n. 1. There is no doubt of the correctness of Jacobi's later dating (JAOS. xxxi, 24 seq.)Google Scholar, and Professor Moore's reference (p. 322) should be read subject to this.

^{page 550 note 1} p. 572.

^{page 550 note 2} pp. 280 seqq.

^{page 551 note 1} p. 509.